This may sound like old news [1, 2, 3, 4], but we can assure you that it’s not. In fact, just over a year ago Groklaw was scolded for suggesting Novell had been into a proper fork, yet the reality has since then proven this assessment to be absolutely correct, some would say prophetic.

Novell has turned their downstream build system at OO-Build into a fork of OpenOffice.org into which they are pushing Microsoft’s OOXML support and in which they make improvements to OO.o which aren’t often upstreamed to the main project. In particular, this isolates all improvements that are themselves made by contributors on most Linux platforms that use Novell’s build system, including Debian. They’ve also started a campaign against OpenOffice.org with the forked code, at go-ooo.org where they promote their (down-level) version as better than OO.o and take potshots at it. we covered some examples before.

“OpenOffice 3.0 will be announced tomorrow, but Novell is a real spoiler.”OpenOffice 3.0 will be announced tomorrow, but Novell is a real spoiler. Novell is hijacking OOo in the practical sense, probably for further embedment of Microsoft intellectual monopolies and hooks that only Novell is legally allowed to distribute (to paying customers).

Novell doesn’t speak about this sinister behaviour publicly, but it sure throws a lot of mud and FUD at Sun Microsystems or its Free software products at the moment (even Java [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]). We mentioned this very briefly a day ago, but we won’t link to actual examples as that would feed Novell’s insidious messages.

We have warned since the very beginning that people should boycott Novell, for it is now paid by Microsoft and therefore helps it attack a major threat to Microsoft’s cash cow. Microsoft does not want OpenOffice.org to stay free. It can’t compete on these terms.

To make matters worse, with go-ooo.org being guerrilla-marketed, there’s more ‘poisoning’. For instance, they push Mono into KDE distributions in this way. Novell’s paymasters in Redmond must be delighted about it. They stay aside grinning — for now.

Readers are encouraged to take immediate action in order to prevent Novell and Microsoft from gaining control of OpenOffice.org (especially on GNU/Linux) under the guise of “we’re just hackers and the fact Novell pays us (in part Microsoft money) is irrelevant.” This pattern of “we’re just hackers” is also used by them to prevent looking like a corporate aggressor and the Mono team does the very same thing while taking control of GNU/Linux — for Novell, as “a community” (some of whom actually work for Microsoft or are on Microsoft’s payroll).

“That’s choosing to give control over more significant portions of the distribution to Novell/Microsoft.”Consider petitioning your distribution’s developers (or leader) to drop Novell’s fork of OpenOffice.org. Inability to do so often means a default choice of go-ooo.org. That’s choosing to give control over more significant portions of the distribution to Novell/Microsoft. OpenOffice.org is vast.

86 Comments

Another old canard. Michael isn’t campaigning for a fork of OOo, he’s campaigning for a better OOo. You can’t castigate Novell for not upstreaming patches; it’s Sun who is refusing them (e.g. Kohei’s solver).

Your claims totally ignore Sun’s side (and some OpenOffice.org volunteers) whose blogs I read. Novell is using some manufactured confrontation as an excuse to hijack and pollute OOo. This was shown over a year ago.

And I don’t buy the “it’s just a Meeks” thing.

This is just a “community”-like front that acts a shield to Novell. Same with Mono. Mono *is* Novell. OpenSUSE is Novell. They use moral shields to conceal these relationships.

Sorry? What side of Sun do I ignore? I value and appreciate their huge efforts into making OOo available.

However, they’re not a Linux distributor, and I don’t expect them to maintain OOo readily for Linux users. That’s what Go-OO is for, and which is why all distributions use it.

Given that you seem unwilling to defend your accusations about upstreaming, here’s a question. You raise the OOXML problem again, but you neglect to tell your readers that Sun’s OOo also has OOXML support, which Sun developed, and they get it when they download OOo 3.0. Why is that, Roy?

Oh Boy … You somehow completely fail to understand the purpose of go-ooo.

1. It is simply not true that go-ooo doesn’t try to push changes upstream. If you claim it is please provide some proof cause the go-ooo devs as well as the OpenOffice ones say the opposite.

2. How Novell is a spoiler or how they try to “hijack” oo is beyond me and your “article” (unsurprisingly) doesn’t show any proofs / arguments for this either.

3. Regardless if Mono is evil or not (afaik it is based on an open standard part of .Net): I have the latest go-ooo installed and it works just fine although I don’t have a single mono package installed. So your claim that go-ooo is trying to sneak Mono into the [KDE] desktop is, once again, not true.

4. Regarding that open letter: Please write one! So many more people than the few that frequent your site have something to laugh. Who knows, perhaps you even find new zealots this way

So, to sum it up, every single claim in this “article” is simply wrong. If you disagree please come up with some proofs (and no, a link to another “article” of yours isn’t what I consider a proof).

However, they’re not a Linux distributor, and I don’t expect them to maintain OOo readily for Linux users.

In my eyes, Sun is more of a Linux company than Novell. Laugh all you want, but Novell just wants to replace GNU/Linux with “SUSE” (.NET and all). We’ve been through this before.

Given that you seem unwilling to defend your accusations about upstreaming, here’s a question. You raise the OOXML problem again, but you neglect to tell your readers that Sun’s OOo also has OOXML support, which Sun developed, and they get it when they download OOo 3.0. Why is that, Roy?

Again, we’ve been through this before. Novell supported OOXML in 2006 when it was nowhere in sight. Sun’s reluctant move was one of desperation, which resulted in part from Novell’s help to OOXML.

2. How Novell is a spoiler or how they try to “hijack” oo is beyond me and your “article” (unsurprisingly) doesn’t show any proofs / arguments for this either.

They try to have go-ooo installed at the expense of guess-what.

3. Regardless if Mono is evil or not (afaik it is based on an open standard part of .Net): I have the latest go-ooo installed and it works just fine although I don’t have a single mono package installed. So your claim that go-ooo is trying to sneak Mono into the [KDE] desktop is, once again, not true.

The question of “standard” does not matter for reasons we’ve explained before. As for KDE, you obviously did not follow the link which is anchored on the claim.

Michael’s statement about upstream suffering bugs that Go-OO users don’t suffer is a statement about the speed at which patches are applied: he’s making a comment about the conservatism of upstream. That’s not withholding code; it just takes an extremely long time for changes to get put through.

OOo is based on CVS (and, soon, SVN). “Forking” such a project carries an extremely high cost in terms of maintenance. It’s not in Novell’s interest to withhold code, particularly since their competitors are using their code anyway.

Free Software needs Open Formats, as do just about any other (Non-MS) packages. Novell is poisoning the commons here. In this case it is by pushing a broken version of OpenOffice tainted with encumbered formats.

Promoting yet another encumbered data format helps no one, not even closed source products (except MS). Rather, it makes a further mess of the masses of legacy formats that we have to deal with.

OpenDocument is an essential first step towards a universal office format.

On the Novell website, there is a page dedicated to the company’s Distinguished Engineers. One of these is Michael Meeks, a Cambridge graduate who began his Linux career at GNOME desktop start-up Ximian, and now works as part of Novell’s OpenOffice.org team.

[quote]Novell is hijacking OOo in the practical sense, probably for further embedment of Microsoft intellectual monopolies and hooks that only Novell is legally allowed to distribute (to paying customers).[/quote]

Could you please provide a link to a Novell site where this is clearly written? It seems to me that, being the licensing LGPL, the distribution is completely free.

For your information, go-oo is distributed for free in openSUSE, and it is used by other distributions too.

I read that link Roy and it basically states that there is support for plugins written in Mono which don’t work if Mono isn’t installed. That is not really surprising …

However, no one is forcing you to install Mono if you don’t like to do so since it is not required for any core functionality but merely to offer the choice to use plugins written in Mono. Choice is terrible, isn’t it … ;P

I also read that other “article” of yours which basically is as bad / wrong as they usually are. E.g. do you really think that Novell isn’t pushing fixes made to upstream OpenOffice upstream? Meeks statement simply means the stuff gets fixed for Novell customers now while core OpenOffice users have to wait till upstream applies the fix and releases a new version. Which is absolutely obvious if one doesn’t give his best to interpret it wrong.

Also it’s up to the distributions to choose if they offer core OpenOffice or go-ooo. Nearly all offer go-ooo since it adds more functionality that isn’t yet available in the upstream project. And since go-ooo is based upon core OpenOffice I really wouldn’t call it “hijacking”. If this would be the case then Ubuntu would “hijack” Debian …

Since you really seem to be unable to grasp the concept behind go-ooo I will try to explain it to you in simple words: go-ooo extends OpenOffice and provides additional functionality which isn’t available in the upstream product yet. They try to push their changes upstream as well but not everything gets accepted (for whatever reason) and it is a pretty cumbersome & bureaucratic process sometimes.

There are benign forks and more malicious forks (I could give example). Given Novell’s submission to Microsoft, I wouldn’t be too willing to let Novell control an office suites in GNU/Linux, which is hardly replaceable. This fork is already being used to promote Microsoft in a variety of ways, even at OOo’s expense.

Let me get this straight: Novell implements OOXML support into a forked OO.o distribution. Therefore, Novell is insulting Sun.

Have I got it correct? If so, what would happen if Novell actually got their changes ported into the official OO.o? The headline would probably read something like: “Microsoft has won a major victory against Sun”.

[quote]There are benign forks and more malicious forks (I could give example). [/quote]

That’s true. This is a “fork” done to add functionalities, which are not only related to OOXML support, by the way. Since when adding functionalities to improve the usability for the end user is negative? Btw, as said by others, OOXML support is implemented also by SUN.

[quote]Given Novell’s submission to Microsoft, I wouldn’t be too willing to let Novell control an office suites in GNU/Linux, which is hardly replaceable. [/quote]

Novell didn’t ask for control on OpenOffice suite, but to create a more meritocratic and less burocratic foundation to make OpenOffice progress. I think it’s under everyone eyes that OpenOffice development is not exactly lightning fast and efficient. It tool more than 6 years to have a decent graph tool in calc, and we are not yet close to Excel level, for example.

[quote]This fork is already being used to promote Microsoft in a variety of ways, even at OOo’s expense. [/quote]

That’s true. This is a “fork” done to add functionalities, which are not only related to OOXML support, by the way. Since when adding functionalities to improve the usability for the end user is negative? Btw, as said by others, OOXML support is implemented also by SUN.

Novell didn’t ask for control on OpenOffice suite, but to create a more meritocratic and less burocratic foundation to make OpenOffice progress. I think it’s under everyone eyes that OpenOffice development is not exactly lightning fast and efficient. It tool more than 6 years to have a decent graph tool in calc, and we are not yet close to Excel level, for example.

That’s the excuse propagated by Novell — a convenient excuse for Novell to use to sieze control of (some of) the project.

[quote]This fork is already being used to promote Microsoft in a variety of ways, even at OOo’s expense. [/quote]

OpenOffice has serious problems and just because someone inside Novell pointed out these problems you go nuts thinking that it’s a conspiracy from Microsoft to destroy open source? Common…

just kidding

Seriously now, despite that Mono nonsense, Novell has done great things for the Linux community (you can thank Novell for that compiz thing), and today it’s a great open source collaborator, indeed, they contribute more to Linux than an army of “Roys” who only knows how to difame people that work hard and rant all day long

I find it amazing how the Novell apologists would defend Novell with such zealotry that they even defend Novell in this situation, go-ooo has become such a total embarrassment, that even the most pragmatic non-OS-caring Linux user is despised of this attempt from Novell to get even more control than they have already by pushing an ooo fork that was never justified other than for the whole “We Novell deserve all control” inner thinking Novell got.

Oh and AlexH is such an obvious shill, I hope people are not taking that guy any seriously. Back when the whole ISO take over, there he was supporting OOXML as if it was the second coming.

Got a link or evidence to that support? It’s a serious question, not trying to discount your claim on its face.

Beyond that though, regardless if you think he’s a shill or not, there doesn’t seem to be anyone who has been able discount much of what he has said on this site without having to try and question his background or why he posts on this site. If he says something you disagree with, bring someone other than his background. It’s a useless tinfoil hat stance if you go to the shill argument.

that even the most pragmatic non-OS-caring Linux user is despised of this attempt from Novell to get even more control than they have already by….

Please tell me what OO.org has to do with Linux. Moreover, do you really think an end user who barely give a crap about what OS they might be using would really care about forks and OSS political bickering? Take a step back from the blogs and news groups for a second and realize the end users don’t care. In fact, they care so little that Microsoft’s monopolistic business tactics clearly aren’t enough to stop them from paying top dollar for MS Office products.

@Roy: You wrote “That’s the excuse propagated by Novell — a convenient excuse for Novell to use to sieze control of (some of) the project.” referring to my comment about the efficiency in OpenOffice development.

You probably need to read some posts in OpenOffice bug tracker, to see that there have been requests of functionalities for years without productive answers. Actually various users, me included, offered to support their development for what possible and to work together with the developers, but it was not accepted. Personally I have never received a comment different from “do it yourself”.
I will provide you some examples regarding calc:

Of course they are specific examples, but these three functionalities together with various others kept OpenOffice out of schools and universities for 7 years. Search a bit, and you will find out a lot more.

Novell added a lot of useful functionalities like multimedia support, VBA macro support, a very nice solver which was really necessary for various complex applications, better diagram rendering and so on. What Novell did is not at all limited to OOXML support. And it has been done in a reasonable time frame.

[quote]
It’s already covered in the body of the post.
[/quote]

In the post you write your point of view. I asked for proofs of Novell and MS trying to go against OO.org. I still don’t see any. You might say Novell is trying to go against the current status of OO.org, and there are good reasons for that, considering the extremely slow development of OpenOffice. But going against the core office suite of Linux is not really what Novell is doing. Of course if you don’t consider improving a product an attempt to kill it.

@xISO_ZWT: forking opensuse to make it better on a more meritocratic foundation would have nothing wrong. It’s the spirit of OSS. I have only one doubt: it would be hard to put together a good enough group of developers to replace the current development team in suse

Roy, I’m not sure what to think. I usually use Frugalware linux, but I noticed that Miklos one of the main frugalware developers is also one of the “people behind go-oo.org”. Obviously, I removed mono from my install of frugalware. But after learning this factiod, should I now go on to another distro like Fedora or Pardus to escape the taint of Novell? I know you can’t answer this question for me, but do you have any thoughts?

There’s an attempt to shift some control from Sun over to Novell and given the chances of Novell being acquired (it’s already exploited by Microsoft in exchange for a lifeline), there’s degradation of trust.

If we’re talking about chances of being acquired, maybe take a look at Sun’s stock price. I’m not sure I put as much store in them as you do, but whereas NOVL has halved over the last year (8->4 roughly) JAVA has completely collapsed (25->5).

(actually, the chances of them merging…. not so bad…)

But anyway, that’s not really the point. Novell don’t want “control”, they want a way of getting their patches merged. If Sun accepted their patches, or setup a Foundation, that would solve most of the problems.

You keep mentioning OOXML and Mono as if Novell is the only company developing that. Sun has many more engineers working on OOXML, as you know, and the official ODF toolkit has .net support on Windows and Mono.

It’s not a fork, either. A fork is a divergence. Go-OO closely tracks upstream, so cannot be a fork.

An example of a fork would be Pidgin versus Empathy: same original code base, but no longer developed together.

Go-OO is based on OpenOffice.org and tracks it version-for-version. This is just a patchset; sometimes patches eventually get applied upstream, sometimes they stay in Go-OO (and not just because Sun won’t accept them).

This is indeed very funny! The only part that isn’t so funny is that there are people that believes all this crap, and this is really really bad for the open source community..

And this Roy seems to be the most stubborn people is the world, when someone post valid arguments against his claims he just put a big wall in front of his eyes and ignore it, and the most funny part, he references himself to prove his right!!!

Well, I’ve sent out an E-mail to Sun’s VP and if I receive a response, I’ll post it here. You seem to find me an easier target for a message to be shot down. I’m sure all your nitpicking (some of which by Novell employees like the one I argue with in IRC at the moment) permits you to pooh-pooh my credibility. That’s what you appear to be here for.

You’ll notice that I don’t make any statements about you; I make statements about the things you say.

In this instance, inciting people to agitate against a free software project is something I’m very much against. You’re painting Go-OO as a fork, when anyone with a SVN browser can clearly see that it isn’t a fork, and the features you claim to be against are present in the upstream version anyway.

I have it confirmed from Sun that go-ooo.org is a fork. I’ve just asked:

“Some people insist that Novell never forked OOo. Can you please shed light on this or at least confirm this is a fork?”

Simon Phipps responded quite promptly:

OO-Build started life as a downstream intermediary run by Novell because the Sun engineers were impossible to deal with. It was mainly used by the Linux builds so that non-specialist maintainers could engage with the code without having to touch the Sun engineers. I’d assert that I have been able to address the issues that caused this problem and if they’ve not gone away they are certainly hugely mitigated and on the way to fixing.

About 2 years ago, there was an intervention because IBM wanted to start participating. The main contributors met and discussed what they wanted to happen. The overall activity was a long story, but the result was that as both IBM and Red Flag 2000 in China joined the development community, there was a loss of trust on behalf of some Novell staff. The result has been that they used the code at OO-Build to create the http://www.go-ooo.org web site where they offer both builds of OpenOffice (including Windows builds and, in their NeoOffice downstream, Mac builds) and spin-prone criticism of the OpenOffice.org community.

Novell also reversed his decision around the OO.o use of the Sun contributor agreement (SCA) to aggregate copyright, on the grounds they doesn’t trust Sun to use the aggregated copyright wisely. Note that the aggregated copyright has been used for the community twice in the last 4 years, once (arguably) to drop SISSL as a dual license and once to adopt LGPLv3 instead of LGPLv2. Without the aggregated copyright the second action in particular would have been very hard indeed, and any similar actions would be impossible. (Sun has also needed the aggregated copyright to support some customers unable to deal with LGPL – this gets OpenOffice.org code used more widely and investment funnelled into the community. There’s no part of OpenOffice/StarOffice that is a big earner for Sun).

Again, I believe I’ve influenced the team to address any concerns around the SCA by focussing on the add-on system which is being very effective at allowing innovative development without the need to engage the core code. The SCA is still needed for any change to the core code, but it’s now very easy to build OO.o features that don’t need to be submitted under the SCA but which can be made available as add-ons.

The result of this is that go-oo.org is definitely a hostile and competitive fork of OpenOffice.org, and OO-Build is no longer a helpful downstream since it no longer upstreams much of anything (especially for Mac), small changes excepted. Unlike Groklaw I’d still hesitate to call OO-Build a fork, but Go-OO is unmistakably one, just look at the web site, the Windows build and the rhetoric.

The motivation for Go-OO being hosted and promoted by Novell and its staff seems unmistakable to me, as does the fact it is a Novell-sponsored fork. They are promoting Microsoft’s flakey XSLT-based OOXML support, they are isolating Linux from OpenOffice.org (so that no-one in the main OpenOffice.org community is able to get support contracts from Linux users). And it is all cleverly wrapped in a community-friendly story about hackers and their freedom and evil, controlling Sun, delivered without interference from Novell corporate.

Y’see, here’s my problem. Ooo-build and Go-OO are basically the same thing (ooo-build is the software, go-oo is the site). It’s not like Go-OO is “isolating the Linux developer community”: vanilla OpenOffice.org just isn’t buildable, that’s why ooo-build exists.

If Sun see Go-OO as a competitive fork – it’s not a technical fork as we’ve already seen – then that’s a major problem, because the two biggest contributors are effectively at loggerheads.

I beg to differ for reasons that are stated at the top. It’s not about relinquishing control; it’s about Novell and Microsoft grabbing control just as they already did in the OSI and various events that they pollute with their proprietary interests (e.g. Windows-only, Visual Studio, .NET, software patents).

Novell fan boys? Well, that’s a new concept. Most users of Novell software generally tend to rip on Novell for various technical reasons. If you’re feeling bored some day, take a read through Novell’s off topic message board. I probably wouldn’t use the label, Novell Fanboy. I guess there really is a divergence between how IT folks who use Novell software and blog/newsgroup jockeys interpret Novell. It’s like two different worlds.

[quote]“There’s an attempt to shift some control from Sun over to Novell and given the chances of Novell being acquired (it’s already exploited by Microsoft in exchange for a lifeline), there’s degradation of trust.”[/quote]

Any proof of these chances of acquisition? Or just speculations based on who knows what foundation?

Degradation of trust should be based on facts, like real, proven objective damages that Novell did to Linux and its community. Not on the basis of the potential consequences of an agreement that a lot of people interprets and speculates on.

I don’t understand why disclosure matters one way or the other. As was stated, there are plenty of people who post here who echo your own statements who are not identified and labeled. The way I look at it, a well constructed post is a well constructed post. Roy, if you post something and you get questioned about it, the motivation behind the questioning is almost completely irrelevant. If you can’t defend your own words, regardless of who is questioning them or why, then you probably shouldn’t be posting it.

Microsoft is better off /using/ — not acquiring — Novell with its ‘open source’ gown because it can spread damage — so to speak — much more effectively in this way. Some journalists compared Novell to a ‘GPL division’ of Microsoft — one that goes to the GPL car park whenever Microsoft needs to get something done inside of FOSS. Citrix too comes to mind here (with Xen).

Moreover, some people who took the trial into consideration do not rule out an acquisition:

Microsoft & Linux: At What Point Is It Cheaper to Just Buy Novell?

“Microsoft no longer sees itself as simply a Windows company. One recent indication of this is their determination to buy the LAMP-centric (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP) Yahoo! Instead of migrating all the tried and tested Yahoo! services over to a Windows server infrastructure, wouldn’t it be simpler to establish Microsoft Linux through the acquisition of Novell?”

Fair point, but some recent posts came under very persistent scrutiny/criticism and not by proponents. It’s okay, but it’s tedious and it pulls weight away from the post, sometimes diluting the overall message. It’s a diversion.

I’m not sure what posts you’re referring to, but if the scrutiny/criticism is valid or at the very least not contested by you or anyone else constructively, then I would think there is no diversion for the objective minded reader.

Speaking of which, while trying to locate that, I also noticed that they have Tom Raftery on staff. He worked for Microsoft (in Belgium) IIRC, on a contract. They also sent him a Vista laptop as a gift a few months after the “bribing bloggers” fiasco:

Without getting into the whats and wherefores of this current story, I would suggest that this is a situation which needs some kind of resolution.

It seems pretty clear to me that both Sun and Novell are unhappy in this situation, and it also seems clear that this isn’t going to improve on it’s own: if anything, it will simply get worse.

Has there been any thought to bringing in a third-party, independent, mediator? There may not be any mutually agreeable solution to current issues, but at least stopping the current relationship getting any worse would be a step forward.

Explain how you came out with this entrie title. What EXACT words did Novell used to ‘insult’ Sun?.

As I read here [ http://www.gnome.org/~michael/blog/ooo-commit-stats-2008.html ] GO-OO is making a constructive and very valid critic about Sun’s way to work on OOo. Furthemore, as GPL says, forks are permited. Indeed forks is what free software is all about: ability to freely modify a system as needed. So, what’s all this about?. It’s because you consider that OOXML shouldn’t be implemented and GO-OO/Novell are doing so?. If you want ‘Boycott Novell’ to be considered a serious place focus on why that’s wrong but the moment you go on with your own FUD, and smears and mud you will have credibility ZERO.

@Miguel: The best word to describe the posting you link to there is “truthy”. There is plenty that is true in it, and plenty that is the first derivative of interpretation (AKA spin). To the causal reader the case the author makes seems compelling.

Identifying each needs a very solid background in OpenOffice history, personalties and community politics and even then remains subjective. I’m not wildly excited to dig into it because there’s way too much explanation needed to clarify it, but one example for you (cited by @AlexH above) surrounds Novell’s substantive items such as Solver.

The author had already signed an SCA for Solver, and it had already been identified as a part of the OO.o v3 release feature set. On joining Novell, the author asserted that he did not now want Solver covered by the SCA. Since the rules for contributions to the OO.o core code require an SCA, the clear consequence of that decision was that Solver had to be removed from the core code.

Depending on your intent, you can spin that as “Novell withdrawing it” or you can spin it as “Sun rejecting it”. The truth is in between and far more complex and involves named individuals, community rules and competitive stances of corporations. My problem with the posting is that none of that nuancing is even attempted or hinted-at.

The conflict is over control (and, as far as the greater FOSS community is concerned) trust.

At this point in time, Sun is a much greater asset to Linux/FOSS than is Novell. The primary reason for this has to do with the checks and balances provided by Sun on Microsoft, who is without a doubt and by far the biggest threat and obstacle to FOSS, vs. the helping hand Novell gives Microsoft in helping Microsoft’s poison and tentacles to spread, eg, http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/18/analysis_how_ms_used/ . [FOSS is software that can run usefully independently of other closed software, something that is impossible with anything that gets ported to Windows, for example.]

I do not like Sun’s support in OO of OOXML, but I can live with it for the time being. At least they don’t appear to advocate use of OOXML and other MS controlled and dominated technologies.

Sun could be bought out in the future. In fact, them losing control over copyrights to the main development branch of OO.o is one way to move in that direction.

Alex, you mention Sun giving up control. At this point in time, that would probably really hurt Sun’s business and hence ability to continue contributing (that is my guess) and keeping the fire underneath Microsoft. I think that to ask Sun to give up something so valuable to them almost necessitates we too ask Novell to place all their Netware, Suse (and derivs), Go-oo, and MS-clone-gunk copyrights into the hands of a “neutral” third party such that we all have access to special licenses (beyond the GPL, etc) or else no one does.

So Alex, are you up to the task of hanging around Novell forums asking that they move their “IP” into “neutral” third party hands in order to resolve conflicts many of us have with them? I would be particularly tickled to see Netware be made open source with copyrights be placed into third party hands, soon, while that product might still be useful.

Novell should walk the FOSS talk, don’t you think? Their customers, whom they love so much, would really appreciate that. [Don't bother to ask same of Microsoft -- it's hopeless beyond hopelessness.]

Getting back to reality, if ISO was manipulated significantly by Microsoft (with help of Novell and others), I think it’s certainly possible a nonprofit could be usurped as well. I do prefer to contribute copyrights to nonprofits, but it’s a judgement call. Again, keep in mind the THREAT to FOSS.

Let me see if this helps clarify the meaning of “fork” (from wikipedia):
>> In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software.

I **love** the concept of forking, but implied by that is that you can dislike/distrust/etc some forks. We can like the concept of forking and then turn around and say that people should watch out for Novell’s fork or at least not contribute to it significantly if possible.

BTW, you can take any two bodies of source code and find a “diff” between them. So a set of “patches” does imply a fork if it is being applied by someone and not by someone else. Note, you *can* “patch” Linux to turn it into BSD. There is nothing magical about “patch”. As the definition states, a fork is implied by independent development. Many distros possibly use forks of “vanilla” OO.o, of “vanilla” Linux kernel, etc.

The fork concept is great. The go-ooo fork is not. [Just like Novell takes the vast majority of OO.o, certainly, anyone else can take from go-ooo/ooo-build, but I would not contribute copyrights to Novell if at all practical.]

@AlexH: Revenue – you might imagine that, but I’d not agree. First it’s not a fork, and second Sun mainly promotes support of OpenOffice.org these days (still some historic StarOffice business, naturally).

Web page: wow, it sucks. While there are actually quite a few people who do want to know Sun will catch the bullet for them in the unlikely event anyone tries to fire one, I think that feature listing is disproportionate to the demand. And it doesn’t mention the support that’s available for OpenOffice.org. I’ll go get the page changed.

>> One of the points of free software is that you don’t have to rely on a single vendor for support.

I’m not in disagreement (abstractly/theoretically) over many things Novell has done in order to compete and contribute (contribute code, fork, add support, or even keep “some” closed source around). The problem is in how closely they have aligned themselves with Microsoft. Apparently Hovsepian seriously underestimated the reaction from many in the wider FOSS community.

Microsoft is very powerful and leveraged and seriously against losing any of that control. Linux is a huge threat to them. Novell is helping Microsoft tame FOSS and Linux. Microsoft has always accepted competing technologies and companies it has not been able to absorb or entirely eliminate, but in a way where these are marginalized. If Microsoft did not have so much domination, aggression, and a past history of success, and if Novell had not aligned themselves so closely to Microsoft, Novell would not be vilified nearly as much as they are. Novell really did help improve Sun’s and Red Hat’s image within the community. And, of course, these companies and others are naturally taking advantage or at least taking notes.

I don’t fault Novell for making a business decision they felt was in the best interest of their stockholders, but the reality remains that it’s not in my interest as an ordinary user and developer to support Novell or to have them be successful while they stick with their current plans.

I don’t fault Novell for making a business decision they felt was in the best interest of their stockholders…

The problem is that, being of a proprietary mindset, they failed to predict the market reaction. The second time they announced coupons they tried to ‘gag’ journalists and bloggers in order to police public perception. I documented this here, having been in touch with those involved.

@Simon: well, I hope you got some money off Asus for shipping it on the EeePC I’m writing on

Just to make it clear, I have no problem with Sun making tonnes of money out of OpenOffice.org, I just don’t have anything against Novell doing that either. One of the sad things about free software is so few people making money actually off the software, not ancilliary services….

I think there are other problems with OOo.
Many people worldwide are using it, may it be the ooo- or go-oo build, but only a few are involved in core development. The impact of Novells contribution is so high because there are only very few other major players involved. I doubt that SUN will continue to invest that much, while getting so little. Assuming other companies would stem a lot developers (which accept the (somewhat peculiar) conventions of SUN), what would the influence of Novell be? I say close to nothing. They would release the go-oo build with their SUSE products but others would likely use the other (new feature-richer) core-builds. Other projects of arguable equal size grow while OOo remains are widget (development-wise).
OOo itself needs a lot supporters which give donations. Firefox can do its job independently by the means they have a healthy financial background, from Google and alike, which allows them to do R&D, advertisement and other stuff. OOo where are you after 8 years?

There are many apps that reach maturity level and continue to be used for a long time with minimal changes in the code.

Plus, today, OO.o is growing and is healthy. Tomorrow, if the need arises, someone else’s fork will catch on. Since it is open source, people will be able to extend OO.o or take a lead when the time comes.

Customers will always be able to use OO.o if they want since they have the source code (assuming some time after those “8 years” the noncommercial and commercial support sources dried up).

And let’s not forget about the other office suites. As ODF support matures, you will be able to move across applications without significantly (or at all) losing fidelity or functionality.

There is very little risk generally in adopting OO.o.

I don’t trust Novell today. I think it’s great that they make some contributions/improvements to OO.o that might be useful to others. Surely, if they borrow the majority of OO.o, others can borrow their pieces without feeling too guilty. Looking forward for Novell to stop supporting Microsoft. [I think Roy needs a vacation.]

There are quite a few high-profile takers of SaaS, notably Zoho and Google Apps (Google just signed Washington DC). They will be capable of taking advantage of open formats and rely on OOo for connectionless work (Google Gears aside), or vice versa. OOo should continue to evolve nicely while taking account of a partial/gradual shift towards the Web (some would naively call this “a cloud”, which is just a bunch of Web servers really).

The criminal enterprise known as Microsoft finds itself embarrassingly exposed in the courtroom, for the IRS belatedly (decades too late) targets the company in an effort to tackle massive tax evasions

A look at some of last week's patent news, with imperative responses that criticise corporate exploitation of patents for protectionism (excluding and/or driving away the competition using legal threats)

Vista 10 to bring new ways for spies (and other crackers) to remotely access people's computers and remotely modify the binary files on them (via Windows Update, which for most people cannot be disabled)